Talk:Arceus
Why is its Durability Multi-Universe level '''actually? All other pokemons are universe level+ at most, so did it tank an full power attack of itself, or something? DontTalk (talk) 22:26, February 28, 2016 (UTC) Fairly certain it's due to complete Arceus maintaining numerous universes and being completely immune to several at least universe level+ opponents wailing on it, at once. Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot (talk) 04:10, February 29, 2016 (UTC) At Least Universe Level+ opponents? The Creation Trio weren't unsealed. TheMightyRegulator 06:44, February 29, 2016 (UTC) Hmmm... Maintaining numerous universes doesn't depend on durability, does it? And when it comes to universe level+ opponents fighting him at once, it doesn't necessary mean that he has to be durable enough to take the force of a Multi-Universe level attack, if he is is capable of taking multiple universe level+ attacks, right? DontTalk (talk) 21:29, February 29, 2016 (UTC) Well, I suppose that Arceus could technically be a glass cannon, but if it was '''completely immune to the attacks of several Universe level+ opponents at once, I think that Multi-Universe level seems accurate. Antvasima (talk) 07:13, March 1, 2016 (UTC) Doesn't Arceus have a win against Thanos? Why isn't it on his page?The real cal howard (talk) 01:28, June 2, 2016 (UTC) Durability question the second About its durability again. If it only took the attacks from the sealed creation trio (like what was mentioned above) wouldn't its durability still be Multi-Universe level? (Since the sealed versions are just ranked Universe level+) Or is its durability ranked after some other feat now? DontTalk (talk) 19:48, September 24, 2016 (UTC) Well to be fair that was just incomplete Arceus. Plus he should be able to take attacks from the unsealed forms of these guys.Dragonmasterxyz (talk) 19:52, September 24, 2016 (UTC) What does "should be able to" mean here. I mean either he did or was stated to be capable to or he didn't. Dialga, Palkia and Giratina are also ranked "likely Multiverse level" so if we scale from them somehow, shouldn't the "likely" carry over? DontTalk (talk) 20:03, September 24, 2016 (UTC) Well seeing as Arceus is far above these guys who are able to tank their own attacks I would find it odd that Arceus cannot tank his own yet his creations can indeed tank their own attacks.Dragonmasterxyz (talk) 20:07, September 24, 2016 (UTC) So Unsealed Dialga, Palkia or Giratina demonstrated tanking hits from Unsealed Dialga/Palkia/Giratina? In that case scaling to them and giving him "likely Multiverse level" would be fine. The reasoning that because other creatures below his power range can tank their own attacks, he should be able to tank his own attacks wouldn't work though, so the likely would stay, IMO. DontTalk (talk) 20:22, September 24, 2016 (UTC) I should probably make a revision thread about this though. DontTalk (talk) 20:23, September 24, 2016 (UTC) While I personally don't see the problem with his durability since it was perfectly fine before. But I think a CRT would be best.Dragonmasterxyz (talk) 20:28, September 24, 2016 (UTC) Can someone add a picture for his true form That would be neat to specify how Arceus is like and not just his stats alone. Mandrakk The Dark Monitor (talk) 23:00, November 22, 2016 (UTC) Arceus's supposed changes So it has non-corpereal-ness and low godly regen added to here. Yet i don't see it's Type 8 immortality added onto here. Is there a reason why that is the case? CrossverseCrisis (talk) 21:23, February 20, 2017 (UTC) From what I've heard from DT, it technically isn't type 8 as much as it is broken Low Godly, as he isn't using immortality from all humans and Pokemon, but is regenerating from the awareness he put inside all humans and Pokemon.The real cal howard (talk) 21:25, February 20, 2017 (UTC) Ah okay....though even if it was that though, shouldn't there be a reason for why he has Low-Godly regen? Then again, that can be said for characters like the DI ones but we have an explanation page for that, though other verses and it's characters likely need their own explanations.....but nvrmind that bit. An explanation of it for....it here, may be useful to put here perhaps? CrossverseCrisis (talk) 21:28, February 20, 2017 (UTC) I'll take care of it immediately.The real cal howard (talk) 21:29, February 20, 2017 (UTC) Looks good enough for me. CrossverseCrisis (talk) 21:34, February 20, 2017 (UTC) Cool. Thanks for pointing this out, Cross.The real cal howard (talk) 21:37, February 20, 2017 (UTC) No problem. CrossverseCrisis (talk) 21:41, February 20, 2017 (UTC)